Standing Committee A

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Clause 19 - Advice of the Electoral Commission

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 73, in 
clause 19, page 11, line 4, leave out from 'direction' to end of line 5 and insert 
 'shall specify that so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, the Electoral Commission shall ensure that the number of electors in each electoral district is approximately equal in all regions'. [Mr. Hammond.]

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 71, in
clause 19, page 11, line 5, at end add 
 'and shall specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed'.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Benton. It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair.
 I was suggesting that the Committee was eagerly awaiting amendment No. 73 and I suspect that the Minister may also have been eagerly awaiting it so that he can tell me that it is redundant. Although it deals with an important point, I am prepared to concede that clause 21(b) has, perceptively, picked up the same point. I apologise to the Committee for tabling an unnecessary amendment, but it gives me the opportunity of asking the Minister a question about it and, by implication, the wording of clause 21(b), and the interpretation that is to be placed on the words ''reasonably practicable.'' The Minister might fairly ask me what interpretation I place on those words as I included them in the amendment. It was always my intention to try to have this debate because the problem is that potentially conflicting objectives may be set for the Electoral Commission when reflecting the identities and interests of local communities to ensure that the number of electors in each area is as near as reasonably practicable to being the same in each area. Those may be conflicting objectives and the weight that should be placed on each one is probably the correct approach in trying to work out what ''reasonably practicable'' means. Clearly, we do not want to abandon the principle of natural communities to avoid one electoral district having 159,999 and another having 160,000 electors. I plucked those figures randomly, but I suspect that the Minister will find that, in a maximum-sized elected regional assembly, that is approximately the number of electors per assembly person that the east of England region would find itself saddled with. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee how he intends to approach that. I am giving advance notice that I recognise that amendment No. 73, although perfectly 
 formed, is unnecessary because it duplicates something that appears elsewhere in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 71 raises a separate issue. It would require the Secretary of State to specify how many members of the assembly are to be directly elected for an individual electoral area and, by implication, how many are to be elected by a top-up system or another method. That is important information for the Electoral Commission and I cannot see how it can do its job properly unless it has that information. It would be very informative for the Committee if the Minister would put on the record what he expects the balance to be between directly elected members and top-up members, and whether he sees any drawbacks in that system. 
 I remember having an illuminating conversation with a member of the Bundestag in Germany, who told me that the Bundestag has two classes of member. Some are directly-elected members who have to deal with the type of burdens—not burdens, but joys—with which Members of Parliament are familiar, such as constituency correspondence, constituency surgeries and all those tasks that we take for granted, but that limit the amount of time that we have available for getting involved in the broader debate and the broader political issues because we always regard pursuing constituents' problems as our first priority. The other class of member has no direct constituency responsibilities. The member I spoke to complained that the latter are invariably able to participate to a greater extent in the broader debate, spending more time in the Chamber and playing more of a role in committees, because they have less of a burden of constituency-related responsibilities. It is often those members who spring to national prominence in the public eye, because they are on television making headway and making waves. Has the Minister thought about the problem that will arise in regional assemblies as a result of having two classes of member—one with direct constituency responsibilities and one with without—and the nature of the balance between the two?

Matthew Green: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the two classes of member. We now have experience of that through the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Conservative Members, in particular, have a great deal of experience, since virtually all their Members in Scotland and Wales are top-up Members. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to them to find out whether they have been able to dominate the news agenda owing to the time that they have on their hands with no constituencies to look after?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the imbalance in the different types of Member between the parties, which makes it difficult to draw the comparison that he seeks. The example from CDU Members in the Bundestag was a comparison between colleagues, which recognised that some had different work patterns that could cause tension. I do not want to make too much of a point of it, but I would be interested in how the Minister thinks that it will work. Members of the Committee might like to consider what has happened
 in local authorities that have opted for cabinet forms of government, where there are now two classes of members. Members of the lower class distinctly feel that, and some of them are not terribly happy about it. I am sure that many Committee members have had representations from councillors in their constituencies who have strong views on what has happened in that respect. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, amendment No. 73 would remove the discretionary power of the Secretary of State in clause 19(4)—that is, the power to specify, in a direction to the Electoral Commission seeking advice on electoral areas and total numbers of assembly members, the numerical parameters within which the commission is to give its advice under clause 19. Our policy, which was set out in the White Paper, ''Your Region, Your Choice'', is that elected regional assemblies should be of a size that ensures that they are inclusive and representative, yet small and streamlined, effective and efficient. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able, if he so wishes, to take a view on what that might mean for the size of an assembly, and to reflect that in a direction to the commission.
 In the White Paper, we said that elected regional assemblies should have between 25 and 35 members, of whom about a third—specifically between 33 per cent. and 35 per cent.—would be from a top-up list. In terms of precedence, the proportion of top-up to directly elected members is equivalent to the arrangement in the Welsh Assembly. 
 The amendment would replace a discretionary power about numbers of members with an obligation for the direction to specify that as far as it is ''reasonably practicable'' to do so—I shall return to the interesting linguistic question of what that means—the Electoral Commission shall ensure that the number of electors in each electoral district is approximately equal in all regions. In other words, electoral districts should have the same number of electors in one region as in another. That directly contrasts with our view that 25 to 35 members is right for any of the eight regions. It would be a matter for the Electoral Commission to decide how many members an assembly should have. Within the provision, the number should be related to the number of electors. The effect on the size of the assembly in each region would depend on exactly which figure we used for the number of electors in each district.

Philip Hammond: I am struggling to follow the Minister's argument. I wonder if he is slightly misinterpreting the amendment. It does not suggest that electoral numbers in each region have to be similar. It suggests that the number in each electoral district is approximately equal in all regions.

Nick Raynsford: I am being charitable to the hon. Gentleman because that is the effect of clause 21, to which he referred. I assumed that he would not have tabled an amendment that was entirely and totally
 redundant. Although he generously conceded that it might be largely redundant, I assumed that he was trying to ensure—as he argued earlier today—a broad parity between the number of electors in any constituency in any region. If that is not the purpose of the amendment, I am happy to say that it is entirely redundant because of the provisions of clause 21(b), so I would be happy if he would withdraw it.
 On the points that he raised in moving the amendment, I said that I would cover the phrase 
''as near as is reasonably practicable'',
 so it is right that I should do so. There clearly is an intention that the Electoral Commission should balance requirements in differing locations. We have talked about the problems of sparsity in rural areas and communities that might have a natural identity, where it would be perverse simply in the interests of numerical equality to add in other areas that do not have a relationship with them. We have included the words 
''as near as is reasonably practicable''
 to accept some flexibility. It is appropriate for the commission to take those wider issues into account

Philip Hammond: That, in a sense, is slightly circular. I understand the Minister's difficulty, but perhaps I could put the question in a different way. Does the sequence of potentially conflicting priorities set out in clause 21 suggest a sort of cascade test? Is the need to reflect identities and interests of local communities superior to the need to achieve equality? What relative weight should be put on those conflicting objectives?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the guidance is designed to set out the issues to which the Electoral Commission must have regard. Those include the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and the need to secure that the number of electors is as near as is reasonably practicable to the number in other electoral areas. Those are the criteria and the commission has to balance those factors while taking into account guidance from the Secretary of State. The commission must have regard to those factors. In the draft guidance that has been circulated, we have already set out our suggestions as to how the commission should approach the earlier stage, which considers the local government boundaries. Similar criteria are taken into account there.
 Amendment No. 71 would require the direction given to the commission under clause 19 to specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed; in other words, the number that are to come from the regional lists. I said that we envisage the list members representing 33 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the total, which is equivalent to the proportion in Wales. The figure is not subject to a commission decision. The purpose of a direction to the commission is to obtain advice relating to electoral areas for regional assemblies. The number of members of an assembly not elected is not a matter for consideration by the 
 commission; it flows from the policy statement in the White Paper.

Philip Hammond: It may be evident to the Minister that paragraphs (3)(b)(c) and (d) make absolutely clear to the commission the number of members intended to be elected for each electoral area, but is each one to be a single-member electoral area? Unless the commission has specific guidelines on how many of the total number of assembly members will be directly elected, the calculation on whether areas are to be single or multi-member will not be obvious.

Nick Raynsford: It is our intention that they should be single-member areas. The directly elected members will then be complemented by the list members, who are indirectly elected in that they are not elected for one particular area; they are elected in proportion to the votes cast for their party, or for them as individuals. In line with policy for Scotland, Wales and London, we envisage single-member constituencies. That would be part of the guidance issued to the commission if there were any lack of clarity.

Graham Stringer: Will my right hon. Friend let us into his thinking on why he has reached his decision on the absolute numbers of between 25 and 30 for the membership of regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. We base our decision on the functions of elected regional assemblies, which are strategic bodies to consider matters that need to be considered in a regional context.
 We have taken account of experience in other areas, particularly in London, where similar strategic responsibilities rest with Members of the Greater London Assembly. Our concern is to ensure that members are able to focus on issues and that there is a sufficient number to discharge responsibilities, but not an excess of them with insufficient activity to keep them gainfully employed. An obvious risk with a strategic body such as this is that members could start looking for work, rather than concentrating on their responsibilities. If they started expressing undue interest in matters that should remain local, they could be brought into conflict with local or central Government. We have been careful to ensure that the constituencies are of a size that does not create such a conflict. The elected members will represent a large area—much larger than both an individual parliamentary constituency and most individual local authority areas—so that there is no conflict between strategic responsibilities, local responsibilities and the responsibilities of Members of Parliament. 
Mr. Hammond rose—

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a moment, I shall deal with the Bundestag parallel that he raised. We do not want to encourage an unhelpful relationship in which members of the assemblies see their role as duplicating the constituency representative function of Members of Parliament. That is not their responsibility, and it would be an entirely unhelpful approach were that to be the case.
 We seek a group of people who will have a strategic responsibility. Some will be elected for and will represent specific constituencies, which will be far, far larger than the constituencies of Members of this House, let alone members of a local authority. It will simply not be realistic for them to perform the same sort of constituency representative function on behalf of individuals. Instead, they will be able to focus on concerns not just of their own constituency but the region. 
 Equally, members from the list who are elected for the region as a whole will be able to take wider responsibility for the region without, in their case, having a specific constituency focus. We think that that is consistent with a small, streamlined body focusing on strategic issues and not duplicating or in conflict with the role of local authorities. 
 Finally, in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), the figure of 25 to 35 takes account of the precedent in London, where there is an Assembly of 25. Apart from the north-west, London has the largest population of any region; nevertheless, it is a relatively compact city. A larger number is necessary to cope with areas that are more stretched out geographically. It would be difficult for a small number of members to ensure effective representation in such areas. Therefore, we have allowed a larger number to ensure that all parts of each region—the rural as well as the urban—can be properly represented within the parameters that I have described. 
 I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question, and I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will agree that his amendment is neither necessary nor desirable and will beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for that response but wish to pick up on a few points. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought that the Minister said that the north-west was the largest region, apart from London.

Nick Raynsford: In population terms.

Philip Hammond: That certainly does not accord with the information in the appendix to the Minister's White Paper, which says that the south-east has a population of 8 million, whereas the north-west has a population of 6.88 million. Unless I am mistaken—my eyes are not terribly good—I believe that the south-east is the largest region. That is important, because many of the points that we have raised relate to the disparities between the sizes of regions.
 The Minister sought to deal with the point that I had raised in relation to the Bundestag—is this an intervention?

Desmond Swayne: It is your speech.

Philip Hammond: I was a little worried that my contribution might be classified as an intervention, in which case it might be deemed to be rather long.
 The Minister sought to address my point about the Bundestag and said that it was not the Government's intention to create an assembly whose members 
 encroached on the territory of Members of Parliament or local authorities. My example referred to Members of the Bundestag, some of whom are directly elected as single constituency members and some of whom are elected from a list. They have differing responsibilities and, in practice, form two classes of Bundestag Member. I do not believe that the Minister really addressed that point.

Nick Raynsford: If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman specifically argued that constituency responsibilities—the joy and pleasure, as he put it on his second attempt, after initially giving a slightly different interpretation of the effect of representing constituents—would get in the way of the wider responsibilities that enabled list members to play a fuller role in debates. I hope that my answer made it clear that we do not expect either group of regional assembly members to be engaged in detailed constituency representation because that would conflict with local responsibilities and the responsibilities of Members of Parliament.

Philip Hammond: That is an interesting view. However, it goes against the grain and against the expectations of many people in the regions. Once the electoral districts have been defined and a certain town or community is an electoral district, people will expect the member whom they elect to represent the concerns of that sub-regional area in the deliberations of the regional assembly.
 If the Minister is dreaming that all the people who are elected from single-member electoral districts will cast aside the narrow interests of their electors and think only at a regional level and of pan-regional interests, he is flying in the face of human nature. The reality is that members elected for single-member electoral districts will find that they are expected to attend events, functions and meetings and to deal with pressure groups and lobbies within their electoral districts. In relation to the assembly, they will take on many of the characteristics of a councillor or a Member of Parliament in relation to their institutions.

Gary Streeter: Let us take the example of Kingskerswell in Devon, which is not in my constituency, where people are desperate for a bypass. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government devolve the decision to a regional assembly—meaning that the Member of Parliament is no longer directly in the loop and the regional assembly member is the only person charged to fight for the bypass—constituents will lobby their regional assembly member, who will be charged to go to Taunton, Exeter or wherever to fight for the bypass?

Philip Hammond: I suspect that that is what will happen and that that is what most people would expect and want.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because that is exactly what I would expect. I was referring to a type of constituency case-work with which most hon. Members will be familiar and which involves detailed work on personal concerns. That work makes up a substantial part of
 the case load of Members and local councillors. Another major part of the work of councillors and Members relates to lobbying by groups from particular areas for benefits such as bypasses. It is important to distinguish the two issues.

Philip Hammond: I accept a large part of what the Minister has just said. It is a useful clarification. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has raised an important issue that no one has yet had a chance to address. His point relates to the accountability of Ministers and the ability of Members of Parliament to pursue the interests of their constituents in cases in which issues are devolved to regional assemblies.
 We already know that we are no longer able to ask questions in the House about, for example, health or education policies in Scotland or Wales. Will my hon. Friend be unable to ask the Secretary of State for Transport a question in the House of Commons about the provision of a bypass within a region that has opted for elected regional assemblies? Will that become a devolved matter and will Members of this House be precluded from questioning Ministers about it? Will Ministers no longer have any accountability for such issues?

Nick Raynsford: It is in the hon. Gentleman's interests to give way so that I can respond. It is certainly not our intention to cut across the responsibility of Members in relation to issues for which the Government continue to have financial responsibility, such as major transport investment decisions.

Joe Benton: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I want to point out that if members of the Committee hope to have a clause stand part debate, they must be careful not to stray into the danger area of discussing the clause. I gently draw the Committee's attention to that.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Benton. With your permission, given that we have discussed this clause fairly thoroughly, I should be happy to widen my remarks slightly and then deal with the issues that I would have raised under clause stand part, if that is convenient for the Committee. No doubt you will draw the appropriate conclusions from the ebb and flow of the debate, Mr. Benton.
 I return to the response that the Minister just gave and remind him that one of his principal themes throughout the debate has been that regional assemblies are about devolving power from central Government. Will that mean that accountability for decision making in certain fields will move from Parliament and Ministers, who would normally be accountable, to the regional assemblies, which will have that power devolved to them? If the answer is no, surely the Minister's assertion that this process involves devolving power down from central Government is shown to be a scam. If the answer is yes, Committee members will have real concerns about their ability to perform their function as Members of Parliament and to hold Ministers to account.

Nick Raynsford: I am conscious that this is becoming a slightly unreal series of interventions; it is more a case of the hon. Gentleman posing questions that are not normally the subject of an intervention. To help him, however, and to speed the discussion along, I put it to him that there is a clear distinction between devolution—what we are determining—and cutting across the convention that Members of Parliament should retain responsibility in fields where Parliament and Government are responsible for financial matters. I was simply illustrating that, in the case of road transport, such responsibilities would remain with central Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the relevant chapter of the White Paper, he will see that there are fields where financial responsibility is devolved. In those cases, we will expect primary responsibility to rest with the devolved body, but in the case of road traffic schemes it will remain with central Government. Therefore, accountability, the principle that I mentioned when responding to the earlier question from the hon. Member for South-West Devon, remains in this House.

Philip Hammond: I think that the Minister's point is that my hon. Friend and I chose a bad example. However, the underlying concern is valid. There will be fields where responsibility is devolved to regional assemblies and Members of this House will be precluded from asking Ministers and Departments questions about them. The power and functions of this House will be eroded yet further.

Gary Streeter: I am not quite ready to concede that I chose a bad example, because the regional assemblies will be concerned with strategic transport decisions. How can there be a strategic plan for, let us say, the south-west region—should there ever be an assembly there—that does not involve decisions on where road bypasses should be? The money might still flow through Government, but the decision of where to put a bypass is surely a strategic transport decision. If that decision is not devolved, which strategic decisions on transport will be?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
Several hon. Members rose—

Philip Hammond: I suspect that, in the interests of efficiency, it might be better to take an intervention from other hon. Members, and then one from the Minister.

Adrian Flook: A couple of brief points have been made. One related to the fact that members of a regional assembly will not be expected, according to the Minister, to act like Members of Parliament. However, my recent experience is that I get a much faster response when writing directly to regional civil servants in Bristol than when writing to Ministers. I contend that the experience of the public will be that, instead of waiting months and months for an answer from a Minister, they will get one more quickly from an assembly member.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister has noted what my hon. Friend has said, and will deal with it when he replies.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman note that that is an excellent example of why devolution will work very well? We will get far more efficient correspondence.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) is pointing out that the bureaucracy works rather better than the quangocracy of appointed Ministers. He would not urge the Government down the route of devolving large amounts of power to regional Government offices without any further check.

Jim Knight: I urge the Government to devolve matters to the regions, and to make those regions accountable through a regional assembly.

Philip Hammond: We shall see whether the people of south-west England agree with the hon. Gentleman or whether he pays for his views in due course.
 The Minister made another point that I want to deal with, but I shall not say anything about what I am going to do with the amendment because that would interfere with his ability to respond to it. He said that the intention is that the number of electors for each assembly would be smaller—I think that he said, ''far smaller''—than the number in a typical parliamentary constituency. That may be the case in the north-east, but it will not be the case in many other regions. The record will show whether I misheard him, but I thought that he said that it is important to maintain a distinction between the smaller number of electors that an assembly person would have and the larger number of electors that a Member of Parliament would have. If he can clarify what he said it will be helpful.

Nick Raynsford: It is sensible that we have resorted to the technique of my responding rather than my trying to deal with the various questions through interventions. First, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Devon on devolution and accountability to the House. I chose the example of road transport schemes because he raised it. That is an area in which financial responsibility will remain with the Government, and therefore the House. We would expect an elected regional assembly to influence decisions. We would also expect it to have clear views about the priorities for bypasses and to lobby the Government on behalf of its particular region, but to do so within the framework set out in the White Paper. Financial responsibility will remain with central Government, and Members of Parliament would therefore be able to hold Ministers to account.

Gary Streeter: The matter is becoming a little clearer, which is one reason why it is important to have legislation in place before people are asked to vote. There is a fog of uncertainty. Is the Minister really saying that in a region that has had strategic transport decisions devolved to it, the Government will still decide where bypasses will go? Surely such decisions—not consultations or lobbying—should properly be devolved to the regions. Is he really saying that the Government will still decide where road bypasses go?

Nick Raynsford: The final decision on the allocation of finance will rest with the Government, but the region will, of course, profoundly influence it. A region
 will produce a regional transport strategy, which will define its priorities. Obviously, it will expect, in what will no doubt be robust discussions with the Government, to argue its case, which is the relationship spelled out in the White Paper.
 The hon. Gentleman gave the example of road transport schemes, which is why I quoted it. I could equally have discussed other areas such as housing capital allocation; it is proposed to devolve such allocation to the elected regional assembly. Decisions on the allocation of finance for the stream that currently runs through the Housing Corporation for registered social landlords and the stream that runs through Government offices for individual local authorities will be taken by elected regional assemblies. Although Ministers will remain accountable for the global sums, the actual allocations and decisions on where and how those housing capital sums are spent would be matters for the elected regional assembly. Rightly, responsibility would rest with it and interested parties should ask it their questions.

Gary Streeter: Are not decisions on where houses should be built currently taken by local authorities? Such decisions will be sucked up from local authorities rather than being taken down from the Government to a regional body. That is a quango, which is further removed from the people.

Nick Raynsford: No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The decisions are currently taken by a quango, the Housing Corporation—

Gary Streeter: No.

Nick Raynsford: Yes. The Housing Corporation takes the decisions, and it makes the allocations to individually registered social landlords. Under the second stream, decisions are taken in Government offices and sums are allocated to local authorities, which then decide how to spend those sums. The prime decision on the allocation of funding is taken either by central Government or by the quango—the Housing Corporation.
 Under the new arrangement, an allocation will be made to an elected regional assembly, and that assembly will decide on the allocation between the local authorities and the registered social landlords, which, in turn, will remain free to decide how to spend the money. There will be no interference whatever in local decision making, but there will be a more accountable framework for allocations within a region, and decisions will be taken by people who will be answerable, rather than by quangos. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that democratisation of the process. 
 On the speed of response to correspondence, I do not recall getting many letters from the hon. Member for Taunton, but if he is overdue letters from me, I should certainly be pleased to hear about it.

Adrian Flook: The last letter that I got from the Minister was a good one, but the chief executive of Taunton Deane borough council pointed out to me
 that it was incorrect, because information from the Department for Work and Pensions needed to be sent with the letter. I have never had a late letter from the Minister. My point is about Government across the board, and was not directed at the Minister in particular.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned that the chief executive of his council should have said that my letter was incorrect. I shall bear that in mind when I next pay a visit to his area and see the chief executive.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the number of electors in relation to members of assemblies, and how that compared with numbers of Members of Parliament or councillors. I apologise if I did not make the matter absolutely clear in my earlier remarks. The constituencies of elected assembly members, whether directly elected or list, will be much larger than parliamentary constituencies or local authority wards. Our objective is for members of assemblies to concentrate on strategic, not just local, issues. That is why we are choosing much wider constituencies.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister concede that ''much'' is a relative term? On a quick calculation, the two-thirds directly elected members in the north-east region will each represent 100,000 electors, assuming the minimum size of assembly. The two-thirds directly elected members in the south-east region, assuming the maximum size of assembly, will each represent something like 300,000 electors. Is that fair?

Nick Raynsford: On the principle that I outlined—that assemblies should be concerned with functions, and that we should have a sufficient number of people to discharge those functions but should not have a surplus of members simply to achieve some kind of mathematical objective—I obviously concur with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. However, it would not be sensible to have large numbers of members without sufficient work to occupy them gainfully. If we did, they would start getting into conflict with the activities of local councils and Members of Parliament, because they would be simply making work to fill time.
 We believe that the strategic functions of elected regional assemblies could be discharged by between 25 and 35 members, whatever the region. We regard that as an appropriate number. If the hon. Gentleman's principle were adopted, and we accepted 25 as the appropriate size for the smallest regions such as the north-east, we would be talking about very large assemblies, with 75 members or more for the north-west and the south-east. I concede that I omitted the south-east when talking about the larger regions earlier. Those two large regions—the south-east and the north-west—as well as London could well be administered with the number of Members set out in the White Paper. London has an assembly of just 25 members; it works well, it is able to discharge its strategic responsibilities and it does not get in the way of councillors who represent much smaller areas with fewer constituents. 
 There is logic in the provision, we think that it is right and sensible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: It is telling that the Minister omitted the south-east, which is the largest region. Many people in the south-east might think that that area had slipped his mind when he was setting out the local government finance settlement a few weeks ago, because he distributed so much money away from that region.
 During the ongoing debate, one of our themes has been that this is not a settlement for all the regions of England—it is directed only at some of them. The fact that the Minister has focused on the north-west as the largest region tells me about the innermost thinking of the Minister and of his Department. The hon. Gentleman is thinking about three regions: the north-west, the north-east, and Yorkshire and Humberside. That is where the action is, and that is what the hon. Gentleman is focused on. He will, quite rightly, be used to thinking of the north-west as the biggest region, because it is the biggest of the three regions that he is seriously taking into account. 
 In relation to the size of electorates, the Minister has said that that line of thinking inexorably leads to assemblies with more members with very little to do. It does not, however, lead inexorably to that; it leads inexorably to the conclusion that the larger regions are ill conceived and are inappropriate for their purpose. There are three variables: the number of elected members, the size of the region and the number of electors per member. The number of electors per member can be changed, either by increasing the number of members or by decreasing the population size of the region. The Minister suggests that it would somehow be perverse to pursue roughly equal electorates per elected member, and in doing so he draws the conclusion that to reach that objective we would need 80 to 90 assembly members in the south-east region, half of whom would sit doing nothing. I suggest that it would be much better to consider subdividing such an unwieldy and illogical region. 
 The Minister faces real difficulty. If he seeks to build consensus and appear reasonable, he must admit that he is somewhat embarrassed to suggest that this settlement, which will provide electorates per elected member of less than 100,000 in some regions and more than 300,000 in others, is a genuinely all-England settlement. He cannot, in his heart of hearts, be comfortable with that outcome. He is saddled with it for reasons of pure expediency. He does not want to reopen the regional boundaries issue, because that would delay his agenda. He cannot be comfortable with that.

Nick Raynsford: I am entirely comfortable with that. I pointed out that the Greater London Assembly has 25 members, a population of some 7 million and constituencies of about 250,000. The hon. Gentleman heard me say that I am satisfied that that is working well.

Philip Hammond: That may well be the case, but it cannot be equitable that constituencies in the north-
 east region will have electorates of 90,000 or 95,000. That would not be an appropriate settlement for the whole of England. I appreciate that the Minister will have to stick to his brief on this issue, but I cannot believe that he is comfortable in suggesting that the vote of a Kentish man should be worth only a third of the vote of—[Interruption.]

Gary Streeter: A Northumbrian.

Philip Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

Nick Raynsford: I am not in the least bit uncomfortable. If the hon. Gentleman accepts my logic concerning a constituency size of about 250,000—as in London—or 300,000, the implication for the north-east region would be an assembly of fewer than 10 members. We would have serious difficulties finding enough people to fulfil the functions of the assembly—finding people to be responsible for particular areas and people to form an opposition. There is a balance to be struck between efficiency and the other considerations. That is why we have proposed a membership of between 25 and 35. Such a membership would enable the assemblies to do their work. The proposal reflects the functions of the assemblies and takes some account of variations in size—although it is not the directly proportionate arrangement that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Philip Hammond: The Minister identifies the problem and draws his own conclusion. The conclusion of an objective observer, landing from Mars and looking at the existing regional map of England, would be that the proposed arrangements are not appropriate for the elected regional assemblies and the devolution of democratic power that the Government want. The regions are too disparate to provide a stable and enduring solution to the problem of how to deal with government in England following the devolution of power to the nations of Wales and Scotland.
 I cautioned my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton about tackling the Minister about unanswered letters. I have some experience of this, and judging by the speed and confidence of the Minister's responses to my hon. Friend today and to me on a previous occasion when I raised the subject of an unanswered letter, I am pretty sure that he has a system in place in his Department whereby he does a trawl of unanswered letters from any hon. Members whom he is likely to encounter in debate. I must tell my hon. Friend that this is not a fruitful line to pursue with the Minister. 
 I can scarcely believe that the Minister keeps in his mind all the correspondence from individual Members of Parliament that have remained unanswered. I suspect that that would be rather tiresome for him. If I may digress for a second, Mr. Benton, I am reminded of a story told to me by a friend who was a civil servant in the Lord Chancellor's Department when Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor. My friend and his colleagues were much put out by the fact that the Lord Chancellor used to arrive at 6.30 in the morning, before the civil servants, open the post and leave it with comments for the civil servants to deal with when they came in. However, I have had no 
 indication that this Minister is quite so obsessive—and I am sure that his civil servants will not thank me for even planting the idea in his mind. 
 I want to return to perhaps the most important and substantive issue to come out of this short debate—the exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon about transport. The Minister asserted that there would be a significant devolution of power, although that power would be tempered by the fact that central Government would retain control of the purse strings. Tellingly, the Minister said said that an elected regional assembly would have considerable influence on decisions. I invite the Committee to consider that that is precisely why we have urged throughout that there should not be a pre-legislative referendum, but that legislation should be in place so that there can be no ambiguity about the amount of power that assemblies will have and the amount of devolution that will take place. 
 I see that the Minister is thumbing through his White Paper again; a White Paper, of course, is not an Act of Parliament but an expression of Government intention. While considering this Bill, we have come across all sorts of caveats about ministerial discretion and Ministers' ability to make decisions and then rescind them. 
 The Minister said to my hon. Friend that a regional assembly would have influence on transport decisions. He might also have said that the regional integrated transport policy would be a major factor. However, that transport policy, like all the other policies that the region will put in place, will be formulated within a framework of national guidance from central Government. It will be a top-down model. It will be formulated in consultation with the Government office for the region—the prefect that will sit beside the nominally powerful elected regional assembly and guide its processes. 
 When I was looking at the Bill, one of the things that leapt off the page at me was a minor matter that is nevertheless indicative of the Government's thinking. They explicitly said that the regional medical officer of health—or whatever the correct title is—who is an official of the Government office for the region, will be the elected assembly's adviser on health matters, regardless of whether the assembly decides to appoint him. He will be an appointee of central Government. That gives us a measure of the Government's true intentions with regard to devolution. That is why Conservative Committee members have been anxious that the electorate should know what it is voting for when it comes to voting for regional assemblies. 
 When the Minister was responding to my hon. Friend's comments, he used the word ''is'' all the time—''It is this,'' and ''It is that.'' However, what he meant to say was ''It may be this,'' and ''It may be that''—if and when Parliament passes a Bill giving regional assemblies the powers that he expects them to have. He is assuming that there will not be a Back-Bench revolt on the Government side, with Labour Members insisting that more, or fewer, powers should 
 be given to regional assemblies. He is assuming that he can get his legislation through while his Government are still in office. 
 There are a lot of open questions and unresolved issues. However, although my eyesight is rapidly deteriorating, because I have reached the age when things start to fall apart, during the fascinating exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon and the Minister I took the opportunity to look again at amendment No. 73, and I have decided on the wisest course of action: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Green: I could have begun my contribution by talking about the stretching to breaking point of amendment No. 73, but I wish to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the maximum number of members who can be elected to assemblies, which none of the amendments specifically deal with, although the subject has been touched on.
 By chance, the west midlands regional assembly's response to the Government's White Paper fell through my letterbox this morning. I am glad to say that the majority of people on that assembly are enthusiasts for regional government, and I thought that I might bring to the Minister's attention a couple of paragraphs from its response that relate to the size of the assembly: 
''One of the most controversial issues arising from the White Paper has been the size of ERA envisaged . . . Consultation meetings organised around the West Midlands by the Regional Assembly and the Constitutional Convention have revealed significant disquiet about whether such a small number of representatives''—
 it assumes that there will be 35— 
''could genuinely 'represent' the West Midlands.''
 The assembly also makes a recommendation that the Minister might wish to take into account: 
''The idea of a small, strategic ERA as a different kind of representative body than local councils or Westminster needs to be 'sold' better''.
 By insisting that the numbers be so low, the Minister is running a risk. Some local councils have expressed worries in their responses about the overall numbers, and although the west midlands is not the biggest region—as we heard in an endless debate, the south-east is the largest—the west midlands has about 5 million people. 
 There is considerable disquiet about the overall numbers: the Minister is in danger of discouraging people from voting for a regional government by being so prescriptive about the upper and lower limits on the numbers, especially the upper limits. Like most other hon. Members, I do not want to see massive regional assemblies, but 35 is an eye-wateringly tight number for some of the larger regions, if we are going to have members who genuinely represent the different make-up of some of the especially diverse regions.

Gary Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the debate by telling us what the upper limit should be?

Matthew Green: No, I do not have a figure in mind. I raise concerns that have been voiced in the west midlands. It is fair to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that those concerns are having a negative impact on the idea of regional government. The Minister wants to win the referendums and this is the most opportune time to bring concerns to his attention. There is clearly an attempt, as in Wales and Scotland, to achieve a degree of proportionality in the share between the parties.

Kevan Jones: I am intrigued about the approach taken by the Liberal Democrats on numbers. In the north-east, for example, they are asking for a larger assembly. Is it now their policy to have a larger assembly and more politicians at that level, and in addition to keep the two-tier or three-tier local authorities for which the hon. Gentleman argued the other day?

Matthew Green: I thought that we had made it clear that we favour unitary authorities. However, those may not be what people on the ground want. There is a concern that unitary authorities will disappear in some parts of the country, not because the local people in that area voted that way but, for argument's sake—
Mr. Jones rose—

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman should bear with me. The people of Birmingham could vote a two-tier system in Worcestershire out of existence. That is the concern that we are raising when we talk about decoupling. It is not that we are not in favour of the principle of unitary government—we are.

Kevan Jones: If we have a referendum in the north-east, will we see Liberal Focus leaflets in Durham arguing to retain the two-tier system and for an assembly of upwards of 40 or 50 members? Will the Liberal Democrats honestly tell the public that they want more politicians?

Gary Streeter: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) should not be embarrassed about it.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) may not like my answer, but we leave such decisions to our people on the ground locally. We are so devolved that we have a devolved system within our party. We do not send out edicts from Westminster about what should be written in Focus leaflets in Durham or anywhere else. We are not like the Labour party in that respect.

Joe Benton: Order. I remind the Committee and the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing whether clause 19 should stand part of the Bill, not what the approach of the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party is all about. Return to the clause.

Matthew Green: Thank you, Mr. Benton, for bringing me back to the point.
 If approximately a third of the assembly is to be the top-up element—the bit that will tend to bring proportionality into the system—if there were only 24 members, it would be difficult to achieve proportionality with only eight of them. The smaller the number, the more difficult that is. I raise that genuine point of concern to elicit the Minister's view. 
 The larger the area from which members are elected, the smaller are the chances of a non-party political person such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) being elected. With strategic views in mind we may want such people to win elections for regional assemblies. 
 The Minister has cited London a lot in his answers, but, as well as GLA members, London has an elected mayor who carries out most of the executive functions. What happens in London is different from the way in which it is envisaged that the regions will function—unless the Minister plans to pull a rabbit out of the hat and say that the White Paper does not, after all, tell us what will happen. I do not think that he would want to repeat the exercise of setting up an elected mayor for all regions throughout the country. 
 The functions of the regional assembly members in the nine English regions—according to the Minister's list that will be the number—will be fairly different from those of GLA members in London. The Minister must be cautious about that. The functions and the way in which the system will work will be closer to the situation in Wales than to that in London. Wales has about 100 elected members—one from each parliamentary constituency plus top-up members. I do not say that that should be the system, but using London as the example is not truly reflective of the way in which things have been devolved. 
 As for the numbers, is the Minister being prescriptive for the long term? Many of us support the principle only as a stepping stone. We have already heard that the powers of the assemblies will be limited. If they are to be based on the White Paper and will never have more powers, many of us would be reluctant to see them set up—they would be super-talking shops. Those of us who support real devolution want real power from this place to be devolved down to a regional level, and want decision making to be taken down towards the people to give them a greater say. If the Minister shares the future vision of other matters transferring down to the regions, does he envisage the growth of regional assemblies to meet their extra work load? Would they reach a final point or would the process be ongoing?

Nick Raynsford: We have heard the authentic voice of the Liberal Democrats, which was nicely highlighted by the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham when he raised the interesting question of whether the Liberal Democrats want both a much larger elected assembly with more politicians and the retention of two-tier councils, to ensure a proliferation of councillors. It is rich for the hon. Member for Ludlow to accuse the Government of encouraging talking shops when it is precisely the Liberal Democrats' policy to have a proliferation of politicians talking, with little focus on results.
 We believe that the size of the proposed elected regional assemblies is appropriate to enable them to discharge their functions expeditiously and to represent all parts of the region. The members will not replicate the role of councillors—that would be quite wrong. All sorts of tensions would be 
 unnecessarily brought into the relationship if many elected regional assembly members were simply second-guessing the work of councillors, which is a good reason for keeping the assemblies small. 
 The hon. Gentleman quoted councillors' concerns about the size of elected regional assemblies. I understand that most councillors who are used to large organisations want a replication of the type of structure with which they are familiar. However, the perspective of business is very different. My meetings and discussions with business communities in most regions throughout the country indicated a strong sympathy for our view that we should have small, streamlined bodies that are fit for their purpose, and do not result in a proliferation of elected members.

Matthew Green: The majority of my arguments were quotes from the west midlands regional assembly's response to the White Paper. Many businesses are represented on the assembly. Indeed, councillors do not make up the majority of its members. If the Minister's points do not represent what businesses involved at the regional level in the west midlands think, where is he getting his information?

Nick Raynsford: I am in frequent contact with business representatives, including the CBI. Its chief spokesman, Digby Jones, is from the west midlands and speaks about the west midlands scene with great authority. The hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by the majority of businesses. The tendency of councillors is to replicate council structures. That is understandable because that is what they are familiar with. We want to create a new style of strategic body.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister is right and that businesses would prefer smaller assemblies to larger assemblies, but the CBI would prefer no assemblies. Given that he has been talking to the director general of the CBI, he did not correct the misleading statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Chamber when he said:
''the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals.—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 630.]
 Will the Minister now confirm for the record that the CBI told him that it is not supportive of the Government's regional assembly proposals?

Nick Raynsford: I had an interesting exchange with Digby Jones about the issue at the CBI's fringe meeting at the Labour party conference this year. He made it clear that the CBI strongly supports regionalisation. We do, too. I do not hide for a moment from the fact that the CBI has some different views from us about the proposals for elected regional assemblies. However, it clearly does not want a proliferation of large bodies with an excess of politicians. The CBI's views on such matters are much closer to ours than those expressed by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Graham Stringer: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, although I do not think that I will be helpful to him. Most of the representatives of business
 organisations I have met in the north-west do not want an elected regional assembly. That is the most subjective assessment that can be achieved. My right hon. Friend also referred to the relationship of regional assemblies and compared them with other assemblies. How will the correspondence from elected members of the regional assemblies be treated by Ministers compared with correspondence from Members of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly?

Nick Raynsford: I am well aware of the fact that the relations between business and elected councillors in the existing assembly in the north-west have not been as good and harmonious as they should be. Given that background, it is not surprising that doubts are being expressed in the business community about regional assemblies. I put it to my hon. Friend that we are proposing a small, streamlined, focused body of about 35 members. I am not saying that that will be the size of the assembly in the north-west, but I am making a reasonable assumption because it is one of the larger regions in the country. It will be different from the large, unwieldy body that currently exists, and which the business community has not found congenial. The proposals hold out a real prospect of effective engagement by business together with the elected members in bodies that focus on issues that need to be delivered. I have forgotten my hon. Friend's second question.

Graham Stringer: We were comparing the powers of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament with the powers that will be given to the regional assemblies. How will correspondence from the newly elected members of the assemblies be treated compared with correspondence with Members of the other bodies?

Nick Raynsford: That is an important point and I expect Ministers to attach considerable importance to correspondence from elected members of regional assemblies. The only English equivalent of a regional assembly is in London, so my only experience of the relationship is with the Mayor of London, who is the executive. We attach considerable importance to responding quickly and thoughtfully to his correspondence. We also respond to correspondence from GLA members, but there is a difference, which is why I focused on the Mayor because he has executive responsibility.
 I shall return to the London analogy in a moment, because the hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned it. His view, that our proposal for small, streamlined, functional bodies will have a negative impact on people's support for elected regional assemblies, is wholly misplaced. I do not believe that there is a great appetite among the electorate—

Matthew Green: Ah!

Nick Raynsford: The electorate. I am not referring to councillors, who often take a view that reflects existing council structures, a point that I have already made. In our view, the electorate do not want large, over-bureaucratic bodies with too many elected members—talking shops that do not deliver. I believe that the streamlined, focused assembly that we propose will be
 much more popular than an over-large, cumbersome one of the type that the Liberal Democrat party seems to prefer.
 The hon. Member for Ludlow also asked whether it is possible to achieve proportionality with small assemblies. We have considered the matter carefully, and express in our recommendations on size our view that it is possible to achieve proportionality in all regions, including the smallest and those with the least representatives—25. That is because top-up members will be approximately one third of the total. We have worked carefully on that and, looking at the likely spread of votes based on previous elections in each region, we are confident of our ability to deliver a proportionate result, in the same way that we achieved for the London Assembly—25 members representing the whole of London—a result broadly proportionate with the electoral fortunes of the various parties there. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow said that London is different. There are some differences because we do not propose to adopt the elected mayor model in regional assemblies elsewhere. The elected mayor is appropriate for a city but not for a wider region. The functions of the Greater London Authority, however, are not fundamentally different from the functions and responsibilities that elected regional assemblies will have. Economic development is at the heart of both, as is strategic planning, transportation planning and responsibility for the environment, culture and health. Those responsibilities, which are discharged by the GLA, are very similar to those that we envisage for elected assemblies. 
 We envisage that elected regional assemblies will have a greater role in housing than is the case in London. Conversely, there will not be the same focus on policing and law and order in the regional assemblies because of the very special nature of the Metropolitan police. Fire in London is also the responsibility of the GLA. With those exceptions, however, there will be a broad parallel between the work of the GLA and that of the regional assemblies. That is why we think it right and proper to take that English parallel into account—we are here to discuss arrangements for England.

Philip Hammond: I am curious about the Minister's reference to the very special position of the Metropolitan police. I should have thought that that special position, which involves a national function, argued against Assembly or mayoral control rather than for it.

Nick Raynsford: I do not wish to stray into territory so far from clause 19 but, briefly, the Metropolitan Police Authority was the one police authority that was previously the responsibility wholly of the Home Secretary and had no framework for more local accountability. That is why a special arrangement was brought into effect. There are different arrangements for other police forces.
 We have had a good debate—

Matthew Green: I raised two other issues and I do not want the opportunity for the Minister to touch on them to pass. One was having independent, rather than party-political, members. The other was the
 future progress of regional assemblies, and whether the Minister envisages them enlarging if they gain extra powers.

Nick Raynsford: There is no reason why an independent member should not be elected. One would have been elected in London had it not been for the 5 per cent. threshold, which was put in place for good reasons, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise. The threshold exists to ensure, in particular, that unrepresentative groups, which may appeal to extremist instincts in some sections of the electorate, do not benefit from a platform unless they have demonstrated substantial support. The threshold was put there with a purpose. It is unfortunate that its impact on London was to prevent an independent member who otherwise would have been elected—[Interruption.]

Joe Benton: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the noise level is rising, which makes it difficult to hear him.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
 On the future, our proposals spell out our view of what is appropriate for elected regional assemblies. They are not some sort of preliminary essay that will be fleshed out by later changes in legislation. Our intention is to give effect to the White Paper's proposals in substantive legislation, and for regional assemblies to be brought into existence by those powers. They are appropriate powers to be discharged at a regional level, and will enable the regions to have a powerful influence on issues that are important to them, such as economic development. They will not involve conflict with individual local authorities by confusing the powers of the two. We believe that local services should continue to be discharged by local authorities, not sucked up to regional level. Equally, we do not believe that it is appropriate for regional bodies to take decisions that are best taken nationally. The package that we have introduced represents a balanced view that gives regional assemblies a proper degree of power and influence over those issues that are best determined by the region. I commend the package and clause 19 to the Committee.

Philip Hammond: Before we move on, I am fascinated that the Minister finds good reasons for thresholds in some situations but not in others. The Opposition have proposed a threshold for the original referendum question to ensure that only those ideas that have, or those people who have, substantial support get through the net. He sees the value of thresholds only when he wants to exclude nasty minorities.
 I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to get away with giving the impression that any differences between the CBI and the Government on the regional agenda are mere matters of detail. For the record, I draw the Minister's attention to the CBI press release during its national conference, on 24 to 26 November. It is headed, ''Grassroots CBI gives 'vote of no confidence' in government plans for English regions''. It states: 
''The CBI will today . . . warn that its members have given 'a vote of no confidence' in government plans to develop the English regions.
It will urge Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to rethink proposals for elected regional assemblies, made in the recent White Paper''.
 It continues: 
''It believes that a new tier of government would further complicate the process,''—
 that is the process of decision making—thus, 
''damaging economic growth''.
 It is slightly misleading of the Minister—I am sure unintentionally—to suggest that the differences between the Government and the CBI are merely ones of detail. The CBI is fundamentally opposed to going down the route of elected regional assemblies, as proposed by Government. Having had two opportunities, I would have hoped that the Minister would make it clear that the Deputy Prime Minister allowed his tongue to slip when he suggested to the House that the CBI supported the Government's proposals. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Preparation and submission of evidence

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 20, page 11, line 11, at end add 
 'provided such timetable shall not require the submission of their advice by the Electoral Commission within less than twelve months from the date of the direction.'.
 The clause deals with the Electoral Commission's response, having been given a direction under clause 19. The amendment, which need not detain us for long, would put a minimum time limit on the requirement for the commission to report back. I do not suggest that the timetable imposed by the Secretary of State would be designed to prevent the commission from doing the job that it has to do, and amendment No. 74 simply suggests that a one-year period should be specified to allow the commission to carry out its electoral district exercise within a region. If the Minister says that a year is far too long, I am prepared to accept that. 
 I selected a year because the Minister said in previous debates that that is how long it would take, give or take a few months, to carry out the local government review. We want to ensure that the Electoral Commission cannot be required to report within an unreasonably short period. The Bill should contain a requirement for a minimum timetable. If the Minister will not concede that, will he at least give the Committee a commitment on the minimum amount of time that he expects to give the Electoral Commission? Will he give a further commitment to consult it on the appropriate length of time that it will have to report after receiving its instructions?

Nick Raynsford: The amendment would mean that the Electoral Commission could not be required under any circumstances to submit its advice given under a direction under clause 19 within less than a year of being given the direction. As I said in earlier debates, we will discuss with the Electoral Commission our proposal for the timetable for its preparation and submission of advice before finalising it. Twelve months is not an unreasonable period, but it would be rather arbitrary to say that it is the minimum requirement in all circumstances. If the Electoral Commission advised us that it could do the work satisfactorily within 10 months, it would be somewhat perverse, to say the least, to have to say, ''Sorry, you've got to twiddle your thumbs for two months before reporting because there is a minimum statutory requirement of 12 months.''
 I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the Electoral Commission should not be rushed by an unreasonable timetable, but I hope that we have already given a pretty clear indication that we will consult it closely before determining a timetable. The earlier provisions in the Bill relating to the boundary committee's work on local government reorganisation indicate how we will go about that. In that connection, I said that a period of 12 months would be broadly correct as a timetable. We are now talking about different provisions on electoral arrangements, and I would not necessarily want our commitment on the local government review to be treated as a precedent in that respect. However, having given the undertaking that we will consult the Electoral Commission before finalising our direction, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a better and more expeditious arrangement and will withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: In general, I am happy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am a little confused, however, about the distinction between parts of the Bill where there is a requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and other parts where the Minister is effectively giving the same commitment from the Dispatch Box. It would have been better to draft the Bill with a single stipulation, towards the end, that before giving any direction to the Electoral Commission the Minister should consult it and review any advice received from it.
 I have a couple more general points to raise with the Minister, but for the convenience of the Committee I shall do so in the clause stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Clause 20 is largely uncontentious. It deals with the procedures once the Secretary of State has done his work under clause 19.
 I shall take the opportunity to raise two issues, one of which the Minister dealt with earlier today, relating to matters that occur throughout the Bill, but which are particularly raised by the clause. I am slightly 
 concerned about the liberal use of directions in the Bill. It reminds me of other Bills in which regulations or rules are laid down by Ministers and not made by order. Our main concerns obviously relate to accountability and transparency. A direction will clearly not be scrutinised by Parliament at any point, unless, in the most extraordinary circumstances, the Opposition devoted an Opposition Supply day to reviewing a direction that had been made by the Secretary of State, which is not likely to happen in most circumstances. 
 The Minister said this morning that a direction would be subject to judicial review to allow an interested body to resort to the courts in the case of a direction that had been made, but that is probably not a route that any of us would favour. I wonder why he is not willing to do those things by orders, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps Ministers are sensitive to the huge acceleration in the number of regulations that are made each year, and are anxious to do as much as possible by directions, which do not count towards the total, rather than by regulations or orders, which do. 
 Will the Minister at least confirm to the Committee that directions that are made will be published to allow the public, and more specifically Members of Parliament, to be aware that they have been made and that certain balls have been set rolling? Otherwise, it seems possible that the process will be closed and opaque to the outside world with directions being made and, as we have seen in some clauses of the Bill, unmade by ministerial direction. Neither of those processes can be scrutinised from the outside. Such a lack of transparency would be wrong and unhelpful, and I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that all such directions will be made public, perhaps, for example, by being placed in a convenient form in the Library or published on the departmental website. We must have an assurance that the process is not going to go unobserved as well as unchecked and unscrutinised.

Nick Raynsford: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Although in his slightly paranoid phase the use of directions may appear undesirable, they are attributes of an efficient Government that will allow us to make progress on administrative matters with bodies such as the Electoral Commission. The commission is separate and independent but it works in a framework, which depends on directions from the Government if certain things are to happen. The directions are the necessary framework for achieving the evaluation by the commission of the suitable constituency boundaries for elected regional assemblies, which is why we have put the proposals in that form.
 I can confirm that the directions will be made available and that we intend to place them in the House Library. I can confirm, as I did this morning, that the directions will be subject to judicial review to allow those who may be unhappy with them an opportunity to seek one. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the clause is a sensible and practical way of going about things while guaranteeing independent consideration. The 
 Electoral Commission is a highly respected, truly independent body, and it will want to give careful thought to all such matters. To get it going, a direction from Government is required, which is why we have adopted this approach. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Electoral commission exercise of functions

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 75 in
clause 21, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (c). 
The amendment would remove paragraph (c) from the clause. Clause 21 is good and useful. It constrains the approach taken by the Electoral Commission in preparing the advice given to the Secretary of State under clause 20. I support that constraint, and I thought it so good that I tabled an earlier amendment that sought to duplicate it. 
 However, the clause has one significant flaw. Having set out something with which we all agree—that the Electoral Commission must have regard 
''to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities''—
 it adds that the commission must also have regard, perhaps incompatibly but equally importantly, to 
''the need to secure that the numbers of electors for an electoral area for an assembly is as near as is reasonably practicable to the number of electors for the other electoral areas''.
 All of that is good news, but we then come to paragraph (c), which says that the commission must have regard to 
''guidance given by the Secretary of State.''
 Oh dear. All that wonderful objectivity imposed on an external body, washed away in a single stroke of the pen by the Secretary of State. 
 If I have understood it, clause 21 (c) gives the Secretary of State scope to override what precedes it. As so often in this Bill, and others, at the end of the clause we find an absolute power of discretion for the Secretary of State, which means that what precedes it is not so much legislation detailing what will happen, as a PR release from the Government spin machine telling us what it wants us to understand that the Government will do. I do not hold that against the Minister or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister because other Departments—the Department of Health is a particular culprit in this regard—have set out lengthy lists of things that must or must not be considered, and then undermined the whole principle of the clause by adding, ''and such other matters as the Secretary of State shall direct.'' 
 I want paragraph (c) to be removed. I do not understand why the Secretary of State needs that guidance power. Wise as he may be, the Electoral Commission is also a wise body. It is made up of experts and advised by civil servants devoted to working in the area. I am suspicious of the Government's need for a guidance power that would require the commission to regard on an equal footing the two already potentially incompatible matters listed 
 and a third incompatible matter. That will further dilute the extent to which regard can effectively be had to the two important criteria already set down in the provision.

Matthew Green: I do not think that I can support the Conservatives' amendment. I am sure that they will be horrified.
 I share many of their suspicions of over-reaching powers given to Ministers. However, we discussed numbers earlier. Under a previous clause, the Electoral Commission may receive guidance to the effect that the numbers should not be smaller than 24 or larger than 35. The guidance to the commission could be straightforward and there must be some provision for that. Perhaps the most worrying element is that it is so overarching, but to delete it entirely would surely not create the set of circumstances that the Bill seeks to achieve. 
 I understand where the Conservatives are coming from, but they may have gone too far in their desire to see paragraph (c) removed entirely. I presume that they will decide to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Leslie: It is a delight to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment, especially as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has said that the clause is good and useful, which is further than he has gone on earlier clauses. Clause 21(c) requires the Electoral Commission to have regard to guidance issued by the Government when preparing and submitting its advice on electoral areas and the total number of assembly members for the elected regional assemblies. It is entirely proper that it should.
 I assure the hon. Gentleman, who is worried about the guidance being overriding, that it will not be. It is not only contingent on the Electoral Commission to have regard to the guidance; the guidance will have to be consistent with paragraphs (a) and (b). I am advised that it would be unlawful if it were not consistent with those paragraphs.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, has already observed that the two criteria set down in paragraphs (a) and (b) are potentially mutually incompatible and a balancing act will have to be struck. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a third criterion were introduced which was incompatible with the other two, it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to give guidance that such a matter must be taken into account?

Christopher Leslie: No, I am not saying that. I return to what I said originally: that the Electoral Commission should have regard to those aspects. Of course, it must balance its various judgments about a particular region and electoral areas on which it proposes to give advice, but, ultimately, it must weigh up all the relevant factors. One reason why it is important that the Government should not rule out the option of giving authoritative guidance is precisely because there may be issues that cannot be put in the Bill if they are
 particular to specific regions. For example, guidance might suggest that an electoral area boundary should not cross particular rivers or other physical features and so forth.

Philip Hammond: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Secretary of State is in a better position to make those decisions than the Electoral Commission, which is charged with carrying out the review? Should the commission not do that?

Christopher Leslie: While I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, Ministers are accountable and their guidance is useful to ensure that the commission is informed about the detailed views of the elected Government and is given an indication of what the Government believe to be important factors for it to weigh up. At the end of the day, the commission will give advice and, ultimately, the Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on that. Accountability will be exercised in that way.
 It is not fair to suggest that the provision undermines the independence of the Electoral Commission, but it is right that the Government's views about particular issues are clearly set out for each region. The provision is the same as that used in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. Ministers are accountable and that gives the Government good grounds to provide advice. It would be wrong to take out the provision and rule out the opportunity for authoritative advice and guidance from the Government. They may want to add various other issues to the consideration—the precedent is there. All the arguments are in favour of the hon. Gentleman withdrawing his amendment.

Philip Hammond: Whatever happened to openness and transparency in government? The Minister—not the Under-Secretary but the Minister of State—accused me of paranoia earlier today. Let us look at the position in which the Government are putting themselves. It is only advice that they will get, but they are apparently terrified of getting advice that they do not like and then have to disregard. They have invented a system whereby they create a nominally independent body and instruct it to give them advice but set ground rules in advance and tell it what it can and cannot advise. They have effectively constrained the ability of the Electoral Commission to give advice.
 The Under-Secretary gave the example of guidance from the Secretary of State that electoral boundaries should not cross rivers. The Electoral Commission would then be constrained not to consider any option that has a boundary crossing a river. Why does the Secretary of State need such a power? Why cannot he just receive the advice of the Electoral Commission, based on its professional and objective assessment of the situation, and then make a political decision that he will or will not accept it? Why does he want a double power, first to constrain the Electoral Commission's consideration before it starts and then, having constrained it, to reject any part of the advice when it is delivered? That seems a step too far.

Christopher Leslie: I am genuinely surprised at the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. If we had not included
 the paragraph but then proceeded to give informal guidance, he would have accused us of subverting the process by giving hidden and unclear advice. I believe that the appropriate way to pursue the matter is openly and honestly, by putting the provision in the Bill and indicating that we intend to give guidance, given that several considerations, such as particular physical factors, must be taken into account.

Philip Hammond: It is very telling that the Under-Secretary thinks that the only alternatives are formal guidance as specified in the Bill or informal guidance. My preference would be that having created a competent, independent, objective body, the Government should not give it guidance.
 The whole purpose of seeking advice from someone is to get advice from them. Let them do their work and then draw conclusions from the advice that they give. For example, what is the point of going to a lawyer's office, paying him a very large fee and then telling him what advice he should give before he starts?

Christopher Leslie: I can see that the hon. Gentleman is getting excited and is thinking that he has an overwhelmingly attractive line of argument. However, he argued earlier how dreadful it would be if the Government did not accept the Electoral Commission's advice as soon as it was given. Surely a way of avoiding such conflicts would be to ensure that the commission is well aware of guidance from the outset, when the process begins. That is the best way of approaching the matter.

Philip Hammond: I do not accept that at all. We all thought that the Electoral Commission had been established to deliver an element of impartiality and objectivity. The proper procedure is that it should do its work and produce its advice. If in the cold light of day Ministers cannot accept some of it, they will not accept it. If they have not proceeded correctly, they will leave themselves open to judicial review of their decision.
 The Minister wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to be able to constrain the consideration at the outset, then reject its conclusion if he does not like it. That will be the effect. I am astonished that both Ministers are so aggressive in defending what they are doing, because it seems to me quite indefensible. That is a significant matter, and I have not heard a satisfactory response on it. 
 However, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is charged with ensuring that progress in the Committee is swift, would, I am sure, not urge me to press the amendment to a Division at this time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Payments to Electoral Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: We had the beginning of a brief debate this morning on what is paid to the commission, which did not reach its natural conclusion—it will do so under clause 23. I should be grateful, however, if the Minister could tell us what discussions he has had with the commission about the amounts that will be required to carry out the reviews in the different regions. What is the range of sums?

Christopher Leslie: The clause enables the Secretary of State to pay the Electoral Commission the amount that he decides is requested by it to prepare and submit its advice under part 3, relating, for example, to electoral areas.

Philip Hammond: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so soon but he said, unless my ears are going as well as my eyes, that the clause allows the Secretary of State to pay the Electoral Commission the amount that it requests to enable it to carry out the functions. That is not what it says in the Bill—that says that it will be the amount that the Secretary of State requires. Is he saying that, in effect, that will always be the amount that the commission requests?

Christopher Leslie: I cannot recall exactly what I said, but the amount will be that which the Secretary of States decides is required, not that which is requested. Certainly, that will be the Secretary of State's decision. The provision is similar to that made in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The estimate that the Electoral Commission has so far made of the cost of this exercise is set out in paragraph 71 of the explanatory notes. It is in the order of between £100,000 and £200,000 per region.
 The Electoral Commission's advice is to be paid for from money provided by Parliament via the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) simply ensures that the commission's expenditure will not also have to be provided for under the mechanism in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Philip Hammond: Does the Under-Secretary have a view on why the fixed proportion of the cost range here appears to be higher than the suggested fixed proportion of the cost range for dealing with the local government reviews? The Minister for Local Government and the Regions suggested that the range there was quite narrow, and the lower end a large proportion compared with the upper end, because of fixed costs. Why are the fixed costs here not the same proportion of the range?

Christopher Leslie: Local government reviews relate to functions as well as other matters; this regime is more focused on electoral area boundary issues than functional matters.
 I want to repeat that subsection (2) details that the payment will be treated as income received by the Electoral Commission for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The clause is fairly self-explanatory. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Funding for regional chambers

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in
clause 23, page 12, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(1A) If the grant or a part of it is made in connection with the discharge of functions in connection with spatial planning, such a grant shall be made by Order'.

Joe Benton: With this we may discuss amendment No. 86, in
clause 23, page 12, line 21, after 'grant', insert 
 'shall be subject to a condition that no part of it shall be used for any purpose in connection with campaigning for or against any question to be put in a referendum pursuant to section 1 or in anticipation of such a referendum and otherwise'.

Philip Hammond: The amendments are intended to constrain the funding for regional chambers in a way that I shall now outline. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to
''make a grant to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with the activities of a regional chamber.''
 The language is slightly curious. Perhaps the Minister will explain who the lucky ''any person'' might be. The Government seem to be contemplating making payments to persons, as distinct from the chamber itself. Perhaps they envisage the Secretary of State paying the milkman direct, rather than a regional chamber paying its own milk bill. No doubt he will be able to clarify that. 
 Amendment No. 85 deals with the making of such grants in connection with the discharge of functions relating to spatial planning. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that that is the principle area that is envisaged. The White Paper from which he has been liberally quoting is entitled ''Your Region, Your Choice'', but there is no choice for regions in relation to the transfer of administrative functions from county councils to the currently unelected regional authorities, as designated by the Government. 
 It is probably appropriate that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is making progress on the Floor of the House even as we speak. That Bill will transfer powers from existing county councils and other authorities to regional chambers. I assume that the Minister will confirm that the grant-making power has been primarily designed with that purpose in mind. If the Government get their way in relation to the that Bill, it will be necessary to fund the activity that it covers. The amendment is intended to ensure that any such grants are made by order, so that there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be made in any manner that means that they cannot be considered by Parliament in the proper way. 
 Amendment No. 86 addresses a separate point. It deals with the possibility—the Minister will doubtless describe this as paranoia—of grants being made to regional chambers for the purpose of, or in connection with, campaigning in a referendum campaign, a pre-campaign, or a campaign to persuade the Government to conduct a referendum campaign. We can assume that, by and large, regional chambers will be advocates of progress along the Government's chosen regional 
 route. It would be entirely wrong for public money given to the chambers to be used for campaigning. If there is to be a campaign, it must be conducted by private protagonists using their own funding. It is bad enough that central Government will clearly use our money to mount a partisan campaign in the run-up to a referendum; we must ensure that the regional chamber does not have a similar opportunity to use public funds. 
 In relation to amendment No. 86, I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is not the intention that the clause will grant public funds for campaigning purposes, and if so, I hope that he will let the Committee know what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure that funds are not used to liberate other funds that could be diverted to mount such campaigns.

Nick Raynsford: Before I come to amendments Nos. 85 and 86, I shall pick up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who highlighted the fact that the clause starts with the words
''The Secretary of State may make a grant to any person''.
 Lest the hon. Gentleman's paranoia extend enormously, and lest there be real anxiety about funds being channelled to consultants such as Streeter, Streeter and Streeter, and other potential beneficiaries, I should make something clear. The provision is designed to cover circumstances in which chambers may be constituted in their own right, as is the case with South East England Regional Assembly Ltd., or may have an accountable body—often one of the local authorities in the region—that acts as the recipient. The provision is an entirely appropriate framework that allows the transfer of funds to one such body, rather than requiring it to go to the local authority in all cases. 
 There is precedent for the provision. For example, section 126 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which has already been referred to, opens with the words, 
''The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with activities which contribute to the regeneration or development of an area.''
 Amendment No. 85 would mean that any grant that the Secretary of State made to the regional chamber in connection with its role as a regional planning body could be made only by a statutory instrument, which would be subject to affirmative resolution. It is difficult to understand why that level of scrutiny is considered necessary for relatively small sums, although a great number of grant-making powers are not subject to such onerous conditions.

Philip Hammond: The reason is that the money is incremental. The function is currently being discharged by authorities and bodies. I do not see any provision for clawback of money from them, so the Government are proposing additional public expenditure, and Parliament should be able to scrutinise that.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is already a regional dimension to the planning process. The development of the policies that are being debated in the Chamber at this very moment involves the functions under discussion being regularised, with regional spatial strategies being prepared by each region. Clearly, that will be the responsibility of the elected regional assemblies where they exist. Elsewhere, we believe that it is right that that should be the responsibility of the chamber.
 The Secretary of State's function is not a new one, as such. It is a rationalisation and part of the streamlining of the planning process, in order to help avoid the proliferation of tiers of planning that are a cause of the inherent delays in the planning process and have caused so much anxiety and frustration.

Philip Hammond: Let us be clear. When the Minister mentions the rationalisation of the process, he is saying that money is already financing the process. This is not a new process; it is ongoing, as he has said. The Minister proposes to give additional money to a new body to take over functions, but he does not propose to claw back any of the money that is currently being spent. In my book, the additional money is new money and it seems appropriate that Parliament should scrutinise the payment of it.

Nick Raynsford: I have no doubt that, had we not included this provision, we would have been accused by the Opposition of stealing money from county councils as part of a process of rationalisation. This is another classic case. This Opposition wish to attack us and, whatever we do, we cannot win.
 Our proposals are a sensible way of discharging the planning process efficiently and consistently, region by region. The Opposition's fears about county councils are greatly misplaced. We are trying to streamline the processes and create a more expeditious planning system than the present one. However, I will not stray into territory that is being debated on the Floor of the House. 
 The resources will help the regional chambers, which, in every region, we intend to be the planning body, to carry out their important role in preparing revisions to regional spatial strategies. It is right that the power to pay grant should be made available to the Secretary of State without the need for an annual approval process; it is a relatively small amount of voted money.

Philip Hammond: How much money are we talking about?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot give a precise figure at the moment but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the details. However, the sums are relatively small. They will be determined by colleagues who are responsible for the planning process.
 Amendment No. 86 would rule out grant being used for either a yes or no campaign in a referendum. Its effect would be similar to that of the existing funding agreements, which are issued to the regional chamber or its accountable body. Funding agreements contain a standard condition: 
''The accountable body may not use any grant paid under this funding agreement for expenditure falling within any of the following categories—
(a) expenditure on activities of a political or exclusively religious nature e.g. campaigning for, publicising and promoting the case for an elected regional assembly''.
 It would be extremely unlikely for a chamber to publicise the case against an elected regional assembly, but, if it wished to do so, that would also be caught by the condition, as it refers to activities of a political nature. 
 I entirely agree with the sentiment that underlies the amendment, but I cannot agree to the amendment because it is not necessary. Of course it would not be right for any regional chamber to use Government grant for political ends, such as promoting yes or no campaigns. That is why we have included that standard condition in the funding agreements.

Graham Stringer: As always, I am listening to the Minister with great interest; he is explaining things that I did not know before. Will he consider the case of the North West Regional Assembly? It seems to be campaigning for an elected assembly: writing in support of an elected assembly in the local press, and appearing on local media to say that elected assemblies are a good idea, is campaigning. As I understood the Minister, that is already prohibited.

Nick Raynsford: I was just about to talk about what we have already done in respect of the North East Assembly. I am happy to do exactly the same for the North West Regional Assembly.
 When the North East Assembly wrote to the Department for advice on using its grant to promote a yes campaign, we replied in the following terms: 
''The Department's view is that expenditure in support of a 'yes' campaign would be overtly political and is thus expressly excluded by the terms of the funding agreement.''
 I would be more than happy to write in similar terms to the North West Regional Assembly if my hon. Friend feels that that is necessary. However, I suspect that the assembly will already have been made aware of the terms of the agreement.

Jim Knight: I hope that this point will not be regarded as mischievous. The Bill distinguishes between an interest in holding a referendum and an interest in a regional assembly. Would it be in order for a regional chamber to seek to generate interest in a referendum?

Nick Raynsford: That is a very good question. If regional chambers form the view that there is a large measure of interest in their region—no doubt there will be a response to our soundings—it would be perfectly proper for them to advocate the holding of a referendum. That would be subsequent to their assessment of the degree of interest in the region in having one. It would be perfectly reasonable. Explicit campaigning for a yes vote would be a political activity that fell foul of the restrictions.

Graham Stringer: I would like the Minister to give a specific answer to my question. Is arguing the case for an elected regional assembly outside the powers of the current regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: The point that I was making to my hon. Friend is that it would be inappropriate for assemblies to use Government grants that are made under the existing arrangements and which would be made under provisions in this part of the Bill for that purpose. If assemblies that are made up of bodies choose to use funds raised under different terms for such purposes, that is entirely a matter for them. However, we would not approve the use of grants—public money delivered by the Government for the purposes set out in our grant conditions—for political activities such as campaigning. That would be precluded on the basis that I outlined.

Graham Stringer: Are paid officials of the regional assembly allowed to write to local newspapers, talk to local media and say, ''We want a regional assembly''? Is that within their power?

Nick Raynsford: If such officials were paid from funds raised privately from sources other than public funds and they were carrying out the agreed policy of the regional assembly, they would not be acting improperly. We are debating the use of public funds made under specific grant to those bodies from the Government. We have made it clear that it would be improper for such funds to be used for the purposes described. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Philip Hammond: In answering the question from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), the Minister suggested that campaigning for a referendum would be an acceptable use of public funds, but campaigning for a particular outcome once a referendum campaign was under way would not. I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 86, which is deliberately phrased to prevent both.
 In seeking to suggest that amendment No. 86 is redundant, the Minister has demonstrated only half that. He has satisfied me that it is the Government's intention, at least, that the use of such funds should not be allowed during a referendum campaign. However, he appears to be telling the hon. Member for South Dorset that it is acceptable to use them for campaigning for a referendum.

Nick Raynsford: Let me make it clear that the main purpose of such funds is to enable the chambers—or assemblies, as they are often called—to carry out their principal functions, which are to oversee the work of the regional development agencies and to undertake appropriate activities to help with the analysis of how the region can improve its economic performance and other related activities. Those are the principal functions.
 In the course of the soundings that are going on at the moment, if the chamber or assembly forms a view that there is a real interest within its region in having a referendum on whether there should be an elected regional assembly, it will be perfectly proper to bring that to the attention of the Government. That would not be campaigning for one outcome. I do not envisage that much expenditure would be involved, but, for the sake of clarity, the chamber would have a role to play. 
 We have consulted chambers along with Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament 
 and others. We seek the views of all representative bodies in the region, and it would be perfectly proper for the assembly to form a view on the degree of interest in a referendum and to make that view known to us. That would not conflict with the principal objection, which is to the use of public money for political campaigning. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge understands the distinction.

Graham Stringer: What advice would the Minister give a regional assembly if the private sector and several Labour councillors left it, if it were aware that the regional development agency was not in favour of it and if the Conservative party in the region was not in favour of it? The assembly would know that to be true because the bodies would have told it or withdrawn from it. Given that you would have failed to give an objective assessment of how the Deputy Prime Minister assessed interest, what advice would you give to the assembly about how to assess interest in its region?

Nick Raynsford: I am sure that you would not want to give advice, Mr. Benton. My hon. Friend is asking what advice I would give. It would be that it was right and proper for the assembly in the north-west region—as in any other region—to undertake its own research to establish the extent of interest throughout the region. Any action should not depend on the partial view of limited organisations such as the Conservative party, which would not necessarily reflect the settled will of the people of the north-west region. I accept that it would be appropriate for the assembly to take soundings and to relay its views to Government, and we would expect that to happen.

Graham Stringer: The only point that I was making was to ask what would happen if the North West Regional Assembly were wholly supported only by the Liberal Democrats. In such circumstances, how would the Minister advise the assembly to assess the direct interest in the region, given its immediate contact with political parties, with the exception of the British National party, which represent 99.9 per cent. of people in the north-west?

Nick Raynsford: I hope that my hon. Friend was not implying that the BNP represents such a high proportion. It is important to clarify that lest there be any doubt at all.
 It is right and proper that the regional assembly should take soundings. We encourage bodies to draw on their membership and their wider contacts to inform any representations that they make to us. We said clearly in our guidance that we will attach greater significance to responses that indicate that wider constituencies have been involved in determining the response of specific organisations. It is not for me to tell my hon. Friend or the North West Regional Assembly how to go about that, but I would expect soundings to be taken. Assemblies will include representatives of every area in the region and will have ways of sounding opinion in different regions. After taking a balanced view on the strength of opinion, they will be able to form a view on whether 
 there is an appetite for holding a referendum, which is the question on which we will want advice. 
 I hope that I have established that amendment No. 86 is unnecessary and that amendment No. 85 is unduly restrictive. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: We were told that amendment No. 85 was unduly restrictive because it dealt with small amounts of money but the Minister did not tell us how much that is. He did not argue against my contention that the amounts are additional public spending. That represents the first example of the financial burden that an additional tier of government will impose. Nothing will be saved at the lower level, but additional costs will be incurred at the new regional level.

Nick Raynsford: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I have now received advice that the sums involved are less than £6 million. There is to be a transfer from the revenue support grant for local authorities, with any extra money coming from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's voted expenditure. We are talking not about large sums of money, but the necessary resources to ensure efficient delivery of the regional planning function.

Philip Hammond: Now is probably not the forum to pursue with the Minister the mechanism for clawback that he has in mind. To many people, £6 million would seem a considerable sum. I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to be too casual in his approach to the small change in his departmental till. How much of that £6 million will be represented by clawback? He has not said how much net additional public expenditure is anticipated to be involved?

Nick Raynsford: The money comes from sums that are allocated to local government, and it is for local government to pass them on to enable the regional function to be conducted. The regional function has been discharged largely by regional bodies comprised of local councillors who, in turn, receive contributions from local authorities. I am referring to a transfer of that function and those sums direct to the regional chambers.

Philip Hammond: I take the Minister's reply to mean that no net additional public expenditure will be involved. As the current regional planning forums will be supported by officers of the county or district councils, I wonder whether it will be so easy for them to shed their cost base immediately or whether the clawback of grant moneys to them to fund the new regional structure will be onerous. I assume that the same people will not be seconded to carry on doing the work. If the same people are so seconded, it will be like a game of dressing up. The people will be the same centrally, have the same money and undertake the same job, but will wear different hats. I thought that the Government were suggesting that something more fundamental would happen. I shall not pursue that avenue because I am sure that my hon. Friends who have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Standing Committee when it discusses the Planning
 and Compulsory Purchase Bill will want to take up that matter.
 The Minister dismissed the need for amendment No. 86 on lobbying during a referendum campaign by referring to the Government's standard grant agreement. I can see no reference in the Bill to the grant being made under such an agreement. Indeed, there is reference to grant being 
''made on such terms as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate''.
 Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an unequivocal assurance that all such grants will be made on the terms of the standard grant agreement and that that agreement will maintain the prohibition on political campaigning? Will he also tell the Committee whether he would be willing to review that grant agreement to include a prohibition on lobbying activity in anticipation of a referendum? He said that no particular costs will be involved, but I can envisage a region engaging expensive consultants to move public opinion within the region, as I can envisage it wanting to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister of the state of public opinion. I consider that that would be an inappropriate use of public funds and I sense that the Minister does, too.

Nick Raynsford: I thought that I had already made clear that our funding agreements contain a standard condition, which is that the accountable body may not use any grant paid under the agreement for expenditure relating to campaigning for publicising and promoting the case for an elected regional assembly. It is clear that that would be caught. The only issue for which I have made an exception is a legitimate soundings exercise by a regional assembly to ascertain the degree of interest in its region in holding a referendum. That would be a perfectly proper activity, but I do not envisage that it would come with a large price tag attached.

Philip Hammond: The Minister confirms, in a roundabout way, that under the standard grant agreement it would not be acceptable for a regional chamber to expend money on lobbying for the Secretary of State to conclude that there was a sufficient level of interest to order a referendum in the region. If that is what he is saying, I am satisfied. However, the gap in his otherwise faultless reasoning is that whatever the standard grant agreement might say, the Bill does not say that that agreement must be used. The Bill states:
''The grant may be made on such terms as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.''
 I was inviting the Minister to give an absolute commitment that a grant would always be made on the terms of the standard grant agreement and not otherwise, or as the Secretary of State thinks fit. Were the hon. Gentleman able to give that assurance, my concerns would be answered.

Nick Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that these conditions apply to all grant agreements that we issue to regional assemblies. That will continue to be the case. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants. We do not consider it appropriate for regional assemblies to use this public money for campaigning or political
 activities, and they should not do that. I did, however, give a caveat that they might have other sources of funds to which different criteria would apply. I do not just give a commitment on that to the Committee. That condition is written into all our funding agreements with regional assemblies and it will continue to be the case.

Philip Hammond: I am not a lawyer, so I will not assume that the Minister was choosing his words carefully. I will take what he said at face value. However, what the Minister did not say was that under subsection (2) all grants would be given under the terms of the standard grant agreement. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in practice that had always been the case, but the Secretary of State has a wide discretion in the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: And that will continue to be the case.

Philip Hammond: With regard to what the Minister said from a sedentary position, and in view of the need to make progress, I will accept that undertaking at face value and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Enactment establishing assemblies immaterial

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
clause 24, page 12, leave out line 33 and insert 'This Act shall not come into force until there is in force an enactment conferring'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 88, in
clause 25, page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (2).

Philip Hammond: The amendment concerns the clause that deals with the Act coming into force. The clause says:
''For the purposes of this Act it is immaterial whether any enactment confers power on the Secretary of State to establish elected assemblies for regions.''
 The argument is familiar and I will not try the Committee's patience by rehearsing it. We object to the principle of a pre-legislative referendum in this matter. The amendment proposes that the wording be amended to say that the Act 
''shall not come into force until there is in force an enactment conferring'',
 power on the Secretary of State to establish elected assemblies for the regions. That would mean that the Minister could go around the country and convincingly wave not his White Paper but an Act of Parliament that set out precisely the powers and functions of regional assemblies, and the limitations on those powers and functions. I suggest to the Minister that if he has confidence in the edifice that he proposes to construct, he has nothing to fear and 
 everything to gain from being transparent about how it would work. 
 The connection between amendments Nos. 88 and 87 puzzles me. Amendment No. 88 would leave out subsection (2)—[Interruption.] I am told that it is entirely consequential. If the clause is amended in the way in which amendment No. 87 proposes, amendment No. 88 would simply be the appropriate consequential amendment to clause 25—I think.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman finished his remarks from a sedentary position with the two words, ''I think'', which I hope the record will reflect as an indication of his view.
 Amendment No. 87 would stop anything being done under the Bill until legislation were in place that enabled elected regional assemblies to be established. The whole point of the amendment, therefore, is that it would in effect negate the clause. That is clearly a delaying tactic to prevent the referendum from taking place. It is clear to the public and all concerned what the consequences would be of voting in a referendum. 
 There is sufficient information about the shape of elected regional assemblies not only in the White Paper, but in the commitment that we gave to pre-referendum definitive statements, which could set out the proposals, the work of an assembly and the shape of unitarisation. There is also plenty of precedent in the same two-stage approach of a referendum followed by enactment of the Bill to enable an assembly to be set up. That was used adequately in the London arrangements and in Scotland and Wales. 
 Amendment No. 88 would prevent parts 2 and 4 from commencing the parts on the local government review and the funding for regional chambers until two months after, rather than on, enactment. That is splitting hairs and, more particularly, it is another way of trying to delay work on the local government review and activity on the regional chambers, which is not desirable. The Bill provides for those matters to be dealt with as soon and as quickly as possible, which is what most reasonable people would want. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Philip Hammond: We are clearly not going to agree on pre-legislative referendums. However, I anticipate from looking at the provisional selection for tomorrow that the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House. We therefore do not need to detain the Committee any longer tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 19 December at five minutes to Nine o'clock.